Consciousness is a Biological Problem

@BrightNoon,

Does someone want to just set up a Poll so there is no question? BTW, I am for (3). I think substituting one word Consciousness with another word Awareness, without any qualification or description may do little to move the discussion forward.

Rich

1 Reply

@Kielicious,

If I may here, please fellow forum members. I have been with this thread from the very beginning, Kielicious personally did agree to give me some leeway in pushing the envelope, and I am serious (which is why I keep prints, so that I CAN go back easily and check for things, look up what folks have said, when, and for what reason, etc.), and I am honest. Is there any reason, really to not accept my word when I say I will keep up with the votes, and present them in a timely enough manner by before that dead-line (which means early Monday morning here)?

Richrf, richrf, richrf...why is it that you cannot come to understand, please. That ' qualification or description ' that you speak of, is what each of us will do upon making our arguments as the discussion moves forward. All it is that we are doing here, is setting a starting point for a definition, mainly as a ways of helping you out with a concensus for a definition of consciousness, so that we can discuss. Believe me, we have to have a starting referent for the word. . . that is just pure, organized, consistent arugmentation format ! We are most specifically and correctly not substituting, but merely showing what we are pointing to when we say consciousness--nothing more.

Please, richrf, let's go with this without further interjection or dispute !! KJ

1 Reply

@richrf,

KaseiJin;86206 wrote:

If I may here, please fellow forum members. I have been with this thread from the very beginning, Kielicious personally did agree to give me some leeway in pushing the envelope, and I am serious (which is why I keep prints, so that I CAN go back easily and check for things, look up what folks have said, when, and for what reason, etc.), and I am honest. Is there any reason, really to not accept my word when I say I will keep up with the votes, and present them in a timely enough manner by before that dead-line (which means early Monday morning here)?

Richrf, richrf, richrf...why is it that you cannot come to understand, please. That ' qualification or description ' that you speak of, is what each of will do upon making our arguments as the discussion moves forward. All it is that we are doing here, is setting a starting point for a definition, mainly as a ways of helping you out with a concensus for a definition of consciousness, so that we can discuss. Believe me, we have to have a starting referent for the word. . . that is just pure, organized, consistent arugmentation format ! We are most specifically and correctly not substituting, but merely showing what we are pointing to when we say consciousness--nothing more.

Please, richrf, let's go with this without further injection or dispute !! KJ

KaseiJin,
What are we referring to when we say 'consciousness?' We are referring to awareness, but only because awareness is a synonym! Using awareness as the definition of consciousness is like using swine as the definition of pig. That's my opinion, but we're having a vote aren't we? So we'll see what happens. You may get your definition yet.

1 Reply

@KaseiJin,

KaseiJin;86206 wrote:

Richrf, richrf, richrf...why is it that you cannot come to understand, please. That ' qualification or description ' that you speak of, is what each of us will do upon making our arguments as the discussion moves forward. KJ

What the heck. You define one ambiguous word with another ambiguous word. Fine with me. We'll spend some time defining awareness. So the discussion will be about awareness and not consciousness. We can even reword the title, Awareness is a Biological Problem. One good word is a good as another.

Rich

---------- Post added 08-27-2009 at 11:48 PM ----------

BrightNoon;86207 wrote:

KaseiJin,
We are referring to awareness, but only because awareness is a synonym!

Yep, you beat me to it. Where is the progress if we just use ambiguous synonyms. We might as well just start the discussion about what is Consciousness and go from there. Why even pretend we have a definition?

BTW, KaseiJin, you can cut out the condescending tone whenever you feel like it.

Rich

1 Reply

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon;86207 wrote:

KaseiJin,
What are we referring to when we say 'consciousness?' We are referring to awareness, but only because awareness is a synonym! Using awareness as the definition of consciousness is like using swine as the definition of pig. That's my opinion, but we're having a vote aren't we? So we'll see what happens. You may get your definition yet.

I think its more than that. The implied etymology if the word 'conscious' is knowledge of oneself or something about oneself (and I use the word implied because the translation to english from this historic latin word isnt very precise).

OxfordJournals wrote:

The word `consciousness' has its Latin root in conscio, formed by the coalescence of cum, meaning `with', and scio, meaning `know'. In its original Latin sense, to be conscious of something was to share knowledge of it, with someone else, or with oneself.

I think awareness works well as a definition, especially from a medical point of view because you may or may not want to be awake while being operated on, but this is also a philosophy forum so I take subjective experience as a definition from a philosophical standpoint. Although, it must be reminded that this should be incorporated as a starting point and may or may not be the complete definition in regards to everyone else.

---------- Post added 08-27-2009 at 11:31 PM ----------

salima wrote:

what happened to kielicious?

Ive been busy and I also have other threads to participate in. Attempting to read through 5+ pages of posts is kinda time consuming, ya know?

0 Replies

@richrf,

Nothing is ever present to the mind but a series of perceptions. Since it should be apparent that consciousness is not identifiable as any one perception, then it must refer to a series of perceptions.

The first question to consider then is whether "consciousness" includes all of our perceptions. Clearly the answer is no, we receive perceptions while we are dreaming, but do not consider ourselves conscious. We also have a sense of self-awareness in some dreams, but do not consider ourselves conscious, so self-awareness and consciousness are not synonymous.

To narrow down the search, consider that all of our perceptions admit of a seperation, between the impressions which we receive into our minds, and the ideas which we observe to be produced by our minds.

That our notion of consciousness is not the same with a procession of perceptions entirely composed of ideas is obvious, by the fact that we do not consider a person having a dream to be conscious.

That our notion of consciousness is not the same with a procession of perceptions entirely composed of impressions is also obvious. A being which recieved input but did not have thoughts about it would be similar to our idea of an automaton.

I can only conclude then, that there is a level of interaction between our impressions and ideas, which once surpassed, provides us with the notion of consciousness.

0 Replies

@Kielicious,

What I am reading from some of these posts is that a discussion on consciousness being of the mind as opposed to the brain, and whether or not the brain and the mind are one and the same, is being viewed by some as belittled and disrupted by the philosopher's viewpoints, and that they would like the discussion to be had without the philosopher's point of view.

Go ahead! talk biologically without any other consideration, that is how you biologists get away with all of your theorizing. You make declarations and expect them to go unquestioned because you believe science to be unquestionable, or at least that is how it comes across if you will so easily toss out any philosophical questioning of it, whenever the philosophical questions cause your theory any distress.

if you want to make this discussion without the barrier of the mystery behind what you are talking about, then do so and you will only be discussing with biologists who believe as you do.

I believe that if a man is standing in a room by himself, he can be conscious of the environment he is in and the sights and sounds found within that environment. he can think about what he experiences, and he can feel and expose his senses to the environment. That is one degree of consciousness at the most biological level, BUT that is not the full or entire definition of the consciousness of the human being.

A biologist can suggest that is the only level of consciousness, and try to define it that way if he is only discussing it with other biologists who want to ignore the other aspects of consciousness. But I see that the human being in the room is also capable of surpassing animalistic abilities of consciousness by considering his identity, and who and what he is, and how who and what he is relates to the environment he is experiencing. I think this unique ability is the one major factor of the human being that should NOT be overlooked when defining consciousness for the simple reason that it is the one most important factor that makes a human, human instead of animal.

So I guess the real question to KJ and others like him is:

Is this a discussion about the lowest degree of human consciousnesses and how it relates to the biology of mind/brain OR are we going to discuss the human consciousness in all of its intensity?

I believe 'THAT' is the problem here, and that is what we should be trying to define.

BTW Noon, thank YOU for acknowledging me in the vote, as some here would rather leave me completely out of the discussion, and probably wish that you and Rich would also disappear.

This is turning into a wonderful discussion of what biologists think about their theories on the human member of the animal kingdom consciousness, and I am sure they would have great chat if there were no other open minds in this thread. Unfortunately for them, this thread is listed in the Philosophy of Mind forum so they are in the wrong part of the board.

2 Replies

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder;86231 wrote:

Go ahead! talk biologically without any other consideration, that is how you biologists get away with all of your theorizing. You make declarations and expect them to go unquestioned because you believe science to be unquestionable, or at least that is how it comes across if you will so easily toss out any philosophical questioning of it.

well Pathfinder one thing many perhaps most neuroscientists and neuroscientifically-inclined philosophers would concede is that the qualia aspect of consciousness remains a total mystery (excepting figures like Paul Churchland), but would add that there is nothing that can really be done about it ... we have no reliable means of investigating this mystery

so the material biological end is all that can really be examined in detail. anything else is like looking for a black cat in an unlit cave

1 Reply

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;86233 wrote:

well Pathfinder one thing many perhaps most neuroscientists and neuroscientifically-inclined philosophers would concede is that the qualia aspect of consciousness remains a total mystery (excepting figures like Paul Churchland), but would add that there is nothing that can really be done about it ... we have no reliable means of investigating this mystery

so the material biological end is all that can really be examined in detail. anything else is like looking for a black cat in an unlit cave

And thank God (just an expression) for humankind that not everyone has that attitude toward seeking knowledge. Where would we be if all of the great minds throughout the centuries had an attitude of learning like that?

If everyone were afraid to walk into the wilderness to find out what might be in there, mankind would still be living in caves, and doing the only thing they know comfortably, farting and picking their noses. Fortunately for you Oden, :detective: at some point curious minds left the cave to see if the world involved anything besides gas and snot.

1 Reply

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder;86235 wrote:

If everyone were afraid to walk into the wilderness to find out what might be in there, mankind would still be living in caves, and doing the only thing they know comfortably, farting and picking their noses. Fortunately for you Oden, :detective: at some point curious minds left the cave to see if the world involved anything besides gas and snot.

err, prehistoric humans using what you might call empiricism were the ones who got us past that stage

the wilderness is something that can actually be observed

another thing that can be observed, tested, repeated, etc. for example is a statement like: "if I hit these two pieces of flint together, I'll get a sharp edge which I can use to cut up dead animals quickly before the scavengers come"

every single technological advance from prehistory to the present time has been built on this essential method, the one I am advocating, so you look awfully silly now

1 Reply

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder;86231 wrote:

This is turning into a wonderful discussion of what biologists think about their theories on the human member of the animal kingdom consciousness, and I am sure they would have great chat if there were no other open minds in this thread. Unfortunately for them, this thread is listed in the Philosophy of Mind forum so they are in the wrong part of the board.

Well, I for one am open to an expansive discussion. If we are going to discuss whether Consciousness is a Biological Problem, we sure the heck can't start by defining it as a narrow biological entity.

Awareness is fine, but it does nothing as a definition. It just means we will be defining Awareness. Certainly the word is open to all sorts of interpretations. What's more, I doubt that anyone is going to find Awareness of self in any brain. So ... let the discussion begin.

Rich

---------- Post added 08-28-2009 at 09:00 AM ----------

odenskrigare;86236 wrote:

every single technological advance from prehistory to the present time has been built on this essential method, the one I am advocating, so you look awfully silly now

That 's the thing. You consider these advances. I just consider them part of an evolution with positive and negative aspects. Cubism, which has nothing to do with technology helped art evolve into something different and probably means more to me than an iPod. But, everyone has their own tastes. Some people like cutting up cadavers, and others like playing a game of tennis. To each his/her own.

Rich

1 Reply

@richrf,

richrf;86239 wrote:

That 's the thing. You consider these advances. I just consider them part of an evolution with positive and negative aspects. Cubism, which has nothing to do with technology helped art evolve into something different and probably means more to me than an iPod

rich you must think I'm a grim depressed scientism zealot who hates art and color and trees or something

that's not the case at all

how's this for aesthetic sensibility huh huh?

YouTube - Susumu Hirasawa - Probability Hill

arts and media are integral parts of my life

and, sure, with the power to hunt and scavenge efficiently comes the power to slit your neighbor's throat. but neither that nor the importance of art have anything to do with whether empiricism is the only way to produce technological advances (it is)

1 Reply

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;86242 wrote:

and, sure, with the power to hunt and scavenge efficiently comes the power to slit your neighbor's throat. but neither that nor the importance of art have anything to do with whether empiricism is the only way to produce technological advances (it is)

Oh well, define it as you wish. I am not sure what the chimp did to begin inventing tools:

Chimpanzees Invent Brush-Tipped Tool: Discovery News

My guess is the chimp was just exploring and trying out new things. Chimps are evolving like everyone else. For me there is no rush. Every path is worthwhile.

Rich

0 Replies

@Kielicious,

they used empiricism

---------- Post added 08-28-2009 at 10:26 AM ----------

hey I'll bet chimps don't believe in qi

1 Reply

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;86248 wrote:

they used empiricism

---------- Post added 08-28-2009 at 10:26 AM ----------

hey I'll bet chimps don't believe in qi

I'm sure they do. In fact, I am waiting for the first published account the empirical method of chimps written by you for Nature. It should be a blast.

As for qi. I am sure that their bodies like all others have energy (qi). Most living mammals have energy and blood (qi and yin). The energy helps keep them moving and alive. Did they teach you about energy and blood in your biology classes?

Rich

1 Reply

@odenskrigare,

I'm noticing that a number of people are thinking of 'consciousness' in a psychological rather than philosophical sense: i.e. in opposition to sub-consciousness, or unconsciousness. For the purpose of this argument, at least for me, 'consciousness' is not limited to waking experience, nor is it uninclusive of dreams, e.g., as someone suggested. I think most everyone has taken 'consciousness' in the philosphical sense, but I can say with certainty that the definition I offered ('the sum of all experience of sensation or thought') does not make any distinction whatsoever between waking experience and experience had while asleep, or while in a coma, or while tripping on acid, etc. Experience is experience is experience.

1 Reply

@richrf,

richrf;86250 wrote:

I'm sure they do. In fact, I am waiting for the first published account by a chimp on how they did it.

don't hold your breath

richrf;86250 wrote:

As for qi. I am sure that their bodies like all others have energy (qi)

yes things have energy, the ability to do work, keep going

richrf;86250 wrote:

Most living mammals have energy and blood (qi and yin)

all living things take energy and matter from their surroundings, i.e., they are thermodynamically open systems, I cannot see how this would be otherwise on other planets either

all mammals have blood and a heart with a full septum, it lets them distribute oxygen which is vital for their metabolism

but not all living things have blood. in fact some living things don't have an aerobic metabolism at all. check your pantry for any bulging cans ... life in the total absence of ... "yin"

I think this is much more fascinating than Iron Age delusion

richrf;86250 wrote:

Did they teach you about energy in your biology classes?

we learned about metabolism yes

1 Reply

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;86252 wrote:

we learned about metabolism yes

I enjoy all your fancy words for energy (qi), blood (yin) and breathing, and how it sustains the body. Maybe evolution is all about creating fancy new long words for simple ideas? Look, it is as good as anything else. It passes time and it amuses, like a crossword puzzle.

Rich

---------- Post added 08-28-2009 at 09:55 AM ----------

BrightNoon;86251 wrote:

but I can say with certainty that the definition I offered ('the sum of all experience of sensation or thought') does not make any distinction whatsoever between waking experience and experience had while asleep, or while in a coma, or while tripping on acid, etc. Experience is experience is experience.

Yes, I agree. But I am sure that this will be all part of the discussion. For me, what I am aware of is what I am aware of, and when I am sleeping, I think I (my consciousness) am aware of my dreams. Though, interestingly when I am awake, I tend to forget dreams rather quickly. An interesting phenomenon.

Rich

1 Reply

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon;86251 wrote:

I'm noticing that a number of people are thinking of 'consciousness' in a psychological rather than philosophical sense: i.e. in opposition to sub-consciousness, or unconsciousness. For the purpose of this argument, at least for me, 'consciousness' is not limited to waking experience, nor is it uninclusive of dreams, e.g., as someone suggested. I think most everyone has taken 'consciousness' in the philosphical sense, but I can say with certainty that the definition I offered ('the sum of all experience of sensation or thought') does not make any distinction whatsoever between waking experience and experience had while asleep, or while in a coma, or while tripping on acid, etc. Experience is experience is experience.

i still believe it should be kielicious who defines the term since he started the thread, is still involved in it, and he knew what he wanted to talk about. so even if his definition was totally wrong in all our opinion, we should consider ourselves to be discussing whatever it is he was concerned with regardless of what it is called.

however-even though i have cast my vote, i cant stop my mind from wandering when new posts are making me realize yet more connotations.

i certainly agree that what we are talking about when we say awareness includes that which we are not consciously aware of-:lol:sorry, i cant help laughing. language is too funny...

there is a part of us that IS aware of more than the part of us that is taking part in this discussion. so there is in fact besides consciousness or awareness a something that is conscious or aware. isnt there? hmm...

my thoughts originally had centered around the idea of sensory information being received by consciousness-but this is only a name i give to some part of the brain. and as rich said, there is the danger of our defining consciousness in such a way that there is no need to discuss it because the way we define it becomes purely biological.

so in other words, i would ask bright noon regarding your definition "the sum of all experience of sensation or thought"....would perception be more accurate than sensation? for instance, there may be some sensation that goes unnoticed for whatever reason-being drunk or whatever.

then i have to ask why mention senses at all? is consciousness the sum of all experience and thought? experience is very subjective...maybe that is what we are looking for? and i also began wondering: when we think, arent we experiencing our thought?

but no, experience is experience-what it is that is experiencing is what consciousness is. so here is where we come to the question of the thread. is that thing that is experiencing biological or not?

i really think we should have kielicious decide...! i know i am now thoroughly confused.

2 Replies

@richrf,

richrf;86254 wrote:

I enjoy all your fancy words for energy and blood and how they move through the body. Maybe evolution is all about creating fancy new long words for simple ideas?

quantifying and clarifying concepts is not pretentious

for example, the vague idea of "yin" tells us nothing about why people get altitude sickness at high elevations

the modern scientific concepts of how the air becomes thin at high altitudes because there's less pressure, how the blood carries oxygen, how the brain uses so much of that oxygen, and how the brain (and muscles and so on) are ultimately deprived of oxygen from this environment and perform poorly explain it

"yin" on the other hand doesn't do diddly for that, or anything else

rich I don't use fancy words for their own sake. you do. I prefer things to be simple and really the only reason I use fancy words and concepts is because they have a higher explanatory or predictive power than their alternatives

1 Reply

Consciousness is a Biological Problem

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know